<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Warrantless Access Archives | Elizabeth May</title>
	<atom:link href="https://elizabethmaymp.ca/tag/warrantless-access/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://elizabethmaymp.ca/tag/warrantless-access/</link>
	<description>MP for Saanich and Gulf Islands</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:04:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	

 
	<item>
		<title>Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act (Bill C-55)</title>
		<link>https://elizabethmaymp.ca/response-to-the-supreme-court-of-canada-decision-in-r-v-tse-act-bill-c-55/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin Reist]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:01:42 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill C-55]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warrantless Access]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elizabethmaymp.ca?p=8719</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I have a question, because I am not sure I understand the point regarding defining police officers. For Bill C-55,&#8230;</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://elizabethmaymp.ca/response-to-the-supreme-court-of-canada-decision-in-r-v-tse-act-bill-c-55/">Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act (Bill C-55)</a> appeared first on <a href="https://elizabethmaymp.ca">Elizabeth May</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Elizabeth May: </strong>Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.</p>
<p>I have a question, because I am not sure I understand the point regarding defining police officers. For Bill C-55, the Supreme Court has demanded that Parliament develop a clear definition of “police officer”.</p>
<p>Not a peace officer, but a police officer. There may be a problem with the words, “or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace”. Perhaps that is the problem? I would like my colleague to speak to that.</p>
<p><strong>Hélène Laverdière</strong>: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed any “other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace”. As long as there is no clear definition, there is the potential for a violation of the basic rights of Canadians. We need to be very rigorous and very precise about this. We must have a clear definition of this term and all the others.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://elizabethmaymp.ca/response-to-the-supreme-court-of-canada-decision-in-r-v-tse-act-bill-c-55/">Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act (Bill C-55)</a> appeared first on <a href="https://elizabethmaymp.ca">Elizabeth May</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
